What limits would you place on freedom?

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I know it seems as if there should always be cheap energy sources for as many people as want to live someplace, but it seems as if the more we build, the faster it's used up.

Every year it seems there's new construction on I-95. How many lanes can a freeway have? Should we just pave the peninsula, paint some stripes and get it over with?

Local government wants more people to move here, and new housing and power plants and freeways to attract them, not just because the developers are major campaign contributors, but because new people moving into the area broadens the tax base, and more taxes give the politicians more to play with.

Every filled wetland and zoning variance is sold to the public as a boon to the local economy - yet we never see any improvements in the quality of life. Instead, the money from newcomers doesn't even cover the cost of accommodating them; we all end up having to pay more for new schools, new sewage treatment plants, flood control - and rebuilding when it fails - in suburban neighborhoods build on filled wetlands that will flood every time there's a wet summer. Gridlock gets worse every day; no matter how many lanes and freeway extensions are added, it's never enough.

I know people have to live somewhere. But why encourage people to move to the places that can least support more development, where fresh water and a lack of space are issues that only get worse?

George Carlin: "Somebody's been raping the environment. Guess who. <changes voice> Hey, she was asking for it."

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

So we are humans, sue us.

amicus...

Damnitt, now I have to take you up on your offer.

This is going to be hard for you guys considering I own all the lawyers.

 

[amicus]

Hey Lucifer....a novel I am working on, "The Amicus Files" portrays the nation a few years down the road...

A private organization undertakes the contruction of 12 self contained mega cities, totally self contained, no automobiles and providing a stable environment, employment and leisure activities for 25 million in each city.

twelve cities times 25 million....taking up less space than the state of New Hampshire in total.

Should leave lots of room for tree huggers, snail darters, spotted owls and those who love the mosquitos in the Everglades.

Sound like a plan?

amicus...

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Hey Lucifer....a novel I am working on, "The Amicus Files" portrays the nation a few years down the road...

A private organization undertakes the contruction of 12 self contained mega cities, totally self contained, no automobiles and providing a stable environment, employment and leisure activities for 25 million in each city.

twelve cities times 25 million....taking up less space than the state of New Hampshire in total.

Should leave lots of room for tree huggers, snail darters, spotted owls and those who love the mosquitos in the Everglades.

Sound like a plan?

amicus...

Eh, I was just being a punk responding to the "sue humanity" portion independent of the point, but sounds good to me. A nice Huxleyian dystopia for the drones and wild nature everywhere else. I could live with that.

Or was I supposed to be offended and say something asinine like "But I like people" in a whiny voice?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Pol Pot? One man in one country at one time in history. The Church? Many men, throughout the span of history placing their influence and destruction on arts, literature and science.

To be fair and accurate it's more like:

"...The Church? Many men, throughout the span of history placing their influence, encouragement, values, freedoms, censorship, and destruction on arts, literature and science."

I believe it neither true nor accurate to say that the only thing Christianity has ever done in the world is destroy or harm it. That is an incredibly uninformed position.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

To be fair and accurate it's more like:

"...The Church? Many men, throughout the span of history placing their influence, encouragement, values, freedoms, censorship, and destruction on arts, literature and science."

I believe it neither true nor accurate to say that the only thing Christianity has ever done in the world is destroy or harm it. That is an incredibly uninformed position.

I don't believe he was attacking Christianity at large, but rather the specific organization that helped make the Dark and Middle Ages such a fun ol' place to live in.

And I still say "That Hieronymous Bosch. What a weirdo."

 

[amicus]

Aldous or Julian Huxley? Memory fails me...it has been many years since I read either...no...I took your reply in a good light, but I do not see 'drones' in the Mega City...I foresee an environment free from the vagaries of weather, constant temperature....ideal working environment for a 'post service' society, many working from home...but with the best and the worst, concerts and wrestling matches...all easily available...

I see 'utilities' electric, water, sewer, heat, air conditioning, transportation, computer access...all as standard...I see high speed rail service, underground, from distant transportation systems, airports, train and bus terminals...

anyway....I see changes coming...and wonder...what will they be a half century from now...

amicus

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Aldous or Julian Huxley? Memory fails me...it has been many years since I read either...no...I took your reply in a good light, but I do not see 'drones' in the Mega City...I foresee an environment free from the vagaries of weather, constant temperature....ideal working environment for a 'post service' society, many working from home...but with the best and the worst, concerts and wrestling matches...all easily available...

I see 'utilities' electric, water, sewer, heat, air conditioning, transportation, computer access...all as standard...I see high speed rail service, underground, from distant transportation systems, airports, train and bus terminals...

anyway....I see changes coming...and wonder...what will they be a half century from now...

amicus

I was thinking of Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" novel. The idea of a dystopia that wore the guise of a perfectly run utopia based on luxury and happiness.

I had to look up who Julian Huxley was (unfortunately my knowledge of 19th century biologists is not as strong as I'd like). Interesting stuff though it would've made Darwin weep (seeing as how Darwin was actually a fairly faithful Christian).

Aye, looking at trends and wondering what the future will bring is a good mark of a sci-fi oriented personality.

I see your world. I live in mine. Don't be insulted. That's just how I am.

 

[shereads]

Hey Lucifer....a novel I am working on, "The Amicus Files" portrays the nation a few years down the road...

A private organization undertakes the contruction of 12 self contained mega cities, totally self contained, no automobiles and providing a stable environment, employment and leisure activities for 25 million in each city.

twelve cities times 25 million....taking up less space than the state of New Hampshire in total.

Should leave lots of room for tree huggers, snail darters, spotted owls and those who love the mosquitos in the Everglades.

Sound like a plan?

amicus...

It's been done. It's called "Santa Barbara."

The people who got rich making Los Angeles unlivable moved to Santa Barbara and passed laws to keep it perfect; laws they successfully defeated or bypassed in other cities so they could get rich enough to move to Santa Barbara. That's the beauty of being against reguations that protect the environment: after you've made your money, you can move to someplace that's not ruined yet. Better yet, take advantage of the efforts of the tree-huggers, by living surrounded by protected wilderness areas.

 

[shereads]

The greatest destruction of the products of the mind of man and the inhibition and prohibition of his thoughts and works, was brought about by those who promolgate the christian religion.

Quibbles, eh? Choose another word then. The criminality of some men notwithstanding, a clear codification of individual property rights and the best legal system we fallible humans can administer is not only the best means of protecting rights and property, it is the only means.

Name one tyranny that has done better.

We humans do learn by trial and error. Any large project, highway system, flood control or hydroelectric dam, intended at the outsef to do good, oftimes has unforesee side and collateral effects that few could predict.

So we are humans, sue us.

amicus...

I must be tired. It looks as if you just threw in the towel, and I know you too well for that. You forgot one point here, though: many of those unforseen problems that no one could have predicted were foreseen, and accurately predicted, and ignored.

You're still cute when you're mad, but you're adorable when you're confused.

Goodnight.

 

[shereads]

To be fair and accurate it's more like:

"...The Church? Many men, throughout the span of history placing their influence, encouragement, values, freedoms, censorship, and destruction on arts, literature and science."

I believe it neither true nor accurate to say that the only thing Christianity has ever done in the world is destroy or harm it. That is an incredibly uninformed position.

Maybe. More likely it's an informed position that now leans toward a side opposite your own informed position. You look at the positive influence of religion, which has been significant, and ignore the atrocities done in its name, which have also been nothing to sneeze at. Others blame God for the actions of zealots who use the idea of god to exert control, and ignore the comfort that religion brings to people who have little else in their lives. I've been guilty of that too, and there's a reason for it: we're threatened by religion. We don't just feel threatened, we are threatened in fact by increasing intrusion into our bedrooms and our doctor's offices. History tells us to expect the worst.

I know many perfectly lovely people whose religion is enormously comforting to them, which is why I'm not anti-religious; just not religious - and extremely cautious. I have intensely spiritual feelings about the consciousness that connects life, and although I don't know that I'd call that force a "god," assigning it a personality, I believe it exists. I also believe that organized religion is a means by which a few people are able to control many, and I find it sad that so many people have bought into the notion that they can't access the spiritual without following the leadership of a pope, a minister, or someone else who claims to have a direct line to God.

Being a conduit to God is an easily abused power. When it isn't abused, it does enormous good for those who need a group to support their individual beliefs and help them find outlets for their natural generosity and good will. But when the power of religion is used, as it so often is, to motivate lynch mobs, deny equal rights to women and homesexuals, and otherwise impose its values on those of us who prefer to ignore religion, it's as dangerous and offensive as a society ruled by evangelical atheists might be.

Btw, I'd like the Catholic Church better if the Pope would stop encouraging starving third world nations to be fruitful and multiply. God, if he's all he's said to be, would surely not mind if a few condoms were passed around until the babies already in existence could be fed and cared for. He may have given us too much credit for common sense when he gave that command.

 

[gauchecritic]

Name one tyranny that has done better.
amicus...

The Romans*? But then, you already knew that.

...but with the best and the worst, concerts and wrestling matches...all easily available...

Gauche

*yes, I know it was an oligarchy.

 

[amicus]

Amicus grins widely and says, "I like youse guys, and refrains from comment because of the late hour and the muddled mind...


cheers...

 

[gauchecritic]

limits

Do what your mother and father tell you to do. (but not do as they do)

Unfortunately this would mean forceful sterilisation for a great number of would-be parents. But other than that...

Gauche

 

[shereads]

The Romans*?

"Other than the aqueduct, paved roads and sanitation, what did the Romans ever do for us?"

~ M. Python, "The Life of Brian"

"Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?

~ M. Python, also from "The Life of Brian"

 

[Remec]

Aldous or Julian Huxley? Memory fails me...it has been many years since I read either...no...I took your reply in a good light, but I do not see 'drones' in the Mega City...I foresee an environment free from the vagaries of weather, constant temperature....ideal working environment for a 'post service' society, many working from home...but with the best and the worst, concerts and wrestling matches...all easily available...

I see 'utilities' electric, water, sewer, heat, air conditioning, transportation, computer access...all as standard...I see high speed rail service, underground, from distant transportation systems, airports, train and bus terminals...

anyway....I see changes coming...and wonder...what will they be a half century from now...

Hmmm, arcologies...an underexplored concept, perhaps, but maybe for good reason. When you boil it down to the very essence, it's just rats in a box. Even in what should be good times, things tend to be a bit miserable.

But, as it's been said,"Think of it as evolution in action."
<g>

 

[Remec]

Small hijacking re: population control

Btw, I'd like the Catholic Church better if the Pope would stop encouraging starving third world nations to be fruitful and multiply. God, if he's all he's said to be, would surely not mind if a few condoms were passed around until the babies already in existence could be fed and cared for. He may have given us too much credit for common sense when he gave that command.

Personally, I think it's been misinterpreted. To me, being fruitful means to establish a society where life can develop and grow and thrive to its best potential, and then mulitply by having children and teaching them what they need to know to continue the society and, possibly, expand it.

But that's just my take on it. <g>

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
Maybe. More likely it's an informed position that now leans toward a side opposite your own informed position. You look at the positive influence of religion, which has been significant, and ignore the atrocities done in its name, which have also been nothing to sneeze at. Others blame God for the actions of zealots who use the idea of god to exert control, and ignore the comfort that religion brings to people who have little else in their lives. I've been guilty of that too, and there's a reason for it: we're threatened by religion. We don't just feel threatened, we are threatened in fact by increasing intrusion into our bedrooms and our doctor's offices. History tells us to expect the worst.

Not to seem argumentative, but I have to make a correction. I have not ignored anything--rather, my position has been one of being against statements that absolute-ify the matters at hand. Example, I only said that part of the Christian church was, during two time periods, a great proponent of the arts and that, ultimately, it encompassed several good and bad traits in regards to them... it is others that say things like "they're the worst enemy ever" and "they're nothing but destructive". Mine is a moderate position and theirs is an extreme one, I lay no (or few) absolute claims to their haphazard many. I only point this out because I've the same habit in any argument I ever make about just about anything.

"...to people who have little else in their lives". This statement strikes a bad chord with me. What of those who have much in their lives as well as religion? I will take it for granted that there is nothing implied here, though.

I know many perfectly lovely people whose religion is enormously comforting to them, which is why I'm not anti-religious; just not religious - and extremely cautious. I have intensely spiritual feelings about the consciousness that connects life, and although I don't know that I'd call that force a "god," assigning it a personality, I believe it exists.

And, for my part, I see no reason not to call it "god" except a drive to be different.

I also believe that organized religion is a means by which a few people are able to control many, and I find it sad that so many people have bought into the notion that they can't access the spiritual without following the leadership of a pope, a minister, or someone else who claims to have a direct line to God.

See, I've heard this before... but only as a second-hand source. That is to say, I've never heard one religious person in my whole life strictly maintain that they cannot "access the spiritual without X". I have met no person who needed (or preached the need for) the Church out of anything but guidance, preference, or tradition. On guidance, the Church is little different than a math class would be for someone wanting to learn math. On preference, there is no harm in having such a one that I can see. On tradition, well... traditions don't necessitate requirement.

I would be most curious about where all these folks who are claiming to require the direct control of the Church for their spiritual growth or sustenance are. Beyond that, that religion can be controlling doesn't mean that it necessarily is. I believe that organized religion is a means by which a greay many people are able to find peace. Amongst its other, less admirable and poor qualities, I cannot deny how much good it has done.

But when the power of religion is used, as it so often is, to motivate lynch mobs, deny equal rights to women and homesexuals, and otherwise impose its values on those of us who prefer to ignore religion, it's as dangerous and offensive as a society ruled by evangelical atheists might be.

I think its poor taste to say "as it so often is". That's a highly relative term and I'm not sure we have the foundation to back it up in any way but anecdotal. I can neither confirm, nor truly deny, the "often-ness" of religious mobs over, say, economic mobs or political mobs or hate mobs.

Btw, I'd like the Catholic Church better if the Pope would stop encouraging starving third world nations to be fruitful and multiply. God, if he's all he's said to be, would surely not mind if a few condoms were passed around until the babies already in existence could be fed and cared for. He may have given us too much credit for common sense when he gave that command.

I read Evangelium Vitae back in '95. I didn't take away "be fruitful and multiply" so much as "there are economic and social reasons why anti-birth policies will not be effective in third-world nations, it is the resolution of a symptom and not a problem". That's just me, though. I confess I have not heard the Pope encourage overpopulation in third-world nations, but I must admit to not being privvy to everything the Pope's said on the matter.

 

[McKenna]

...snip... That's the beauty of being against reguations that protect the environment: after you've made your money, you can move to someplace that's not ruined yet....

Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana come to mind. The population influx in my area alone is something like 30,000 within the past five years. New subdivisions pop up over night, it seems, as does the need for new schools and commerce to support the new arrivals.

 

[Clare Quilty]

That's true, and we still haven't thanked the Church for saving us from the witches and the Jews!

Nor have we adequately thanked the Jews for ridding the world of all of those evil groups who just happened to be in competition with them for land and other resources--Philistines, Amalakites and Canaanites etc... Conveniently, God hated them too and, I have it on authority of the bible, wanted them all dead.

 

[Pure]

Among the usual amicus muddle, I do see one small good point. I think society HAS benefited by there being (recognized) a very strong right to one's own body. In the US, this seems to have been a consequence of the concept of privacy, originally applied to one's home/castle, being extended to the body. (Note to amicus; this extension is due to the Supreme Ct., an unelected body.) Abortion rights follow.

I don't think a strong 'right to one's body' (not to be used or invaded) gives rise to strong *property rights*, however. (As amicus suggests.) Property being some tangible fruits of one's labor, including 'working the land', or of exchanges of value.

The 'fruits of one's labor' are too conditioned by the social context and support. For instance, if you build your log cabin, you probably use some public roads to carry stuff in. As you build, you use the police to stop theft of building materials. So, unlike amicus, I see nothing wrong with the concept that all 'products' or land are owned by the state (king), IN THEORY, and are parcelled out to people (fee simple). Hence a right of eminent domain; i.e., to reclaim for the state's use and benefit, a piece of land).

In short, you're going to owe taxes on your cabin, and the state can grab it if you don't pay. Seems fair, for the state facilitated your cabin building. No, this isn't socialism, it's capitalism, just not the *ideal* and never-realized, pie-in-the-sky form advocated by Rand.

Of course even the right to one's body is qualified in extremity. I support conscription in national emergency. Citizens' bodies are put 'on the line'. The same argument as above, applies. You owe your security of body, in part, to the state. If the state fails to protect its territory and power, your body may be destroyed(nazi style) or enslaved (Roman style) or whatever. So the legitimate state, to protect its existence in an extremity, may, in a fair way, make incursions on the 'right to one's own body.'

My three cents.

 

[shereads]

Not to seem argumentative, but I have to make a correction. I have not ignored anything--rather, my position has been one of being against statements that absolute-ify the matters at hand. Example, I only said that part of the Christian church was, during two time periods, a great proponent of the arts and that, ultimately, it encompassed several good and bad traits in regards to them... it is others that say things like "they're the worst enemy ever" and "they're nothing but destructive". Mine is a moderate position and theirs is an extreme one, I lay no (or few) absolute claims to their haphazard many. I only point this out because I've the same habit in any argument I ever make about just about anything.

Point taken. You appeared to minimize the wrongs done in the church's name, but that may be a mistaken impression on my part.

"...to people who have little else in their lives". This statement strikes a bad chord with me. What of those who have much in their lives as well as religion? I will take it for granted that there is nothing implied here, though.

Something is implied: that religion can positively influence people who have little else in their lives.

And, for my part, I see no reason not to call it "god" except a drive to be different.

Ah. So if my views differ substantially from yours, it's because I'm driven to be different. (NOW you're just being argumentative - and illustrating the Church's lack of tolerance quite nicely, thank you.) One reason could be the one I gave: I don't assign a personality. I believe in a creative spirit behind intelligent life in the universe, which seems diminished by assigning it a personality, whether it's called God or Uncle Hal, with or without a beard and a nasty temper.

See, I've heard this before... but only as a second-hand source. That is to say, I've never heard one religious person in my whole life strictly maintain that they cannot "access the spiritual without X". I have met no person who needed (or preached the need for) the Church out of anything but guidance, preference, or tradition. On guidance, the Church is little different than a math class would be for someone wanting to learn math. On preference, there is no harm in having such a one that I can see.

Isn't it frustrating not to see anything in your own experience that explains the beliefs, fears and prejudices of others?

Yet they insist that their experience has given them life-lessons so different from your own? Go figure.

I would be most curious about where all these folks who are claiming to require the direct control of the Church for their spiritual growth or sustenance are.

For starters, visit your nearest Southern Baptist or Methodist Church and ask for a show of hands. Then, if you really want to see a display of faith in action, I recommend "Under the Banner of Heaven," by Jon Krakauer. But if all you really want is to be in a snit, that works too...BTW, the Pope and I are in constant touch by way of the newspaper. He sends me secret, coded messages about the Church's position on birth control, and he's not sending any positive messages about condom use even in places where AIDS is rampant.

Edited to add: You are no more likely to hear people claiming that their reliance on the church may not be purely positive in its effect on their lives, than you will hear people say, "I drink too much," or "Im a lousy driver" or "I'm a follower."

 

[gauchecritic]

My three cents.

Good points there Pure and they give rise to the little realised thought that free-society is an oxymoron.

I think I'd go further with the body being your own. You owe someone for having it (as you say) even if there is "No Charge". I would say that you owe it to society and as such (assuming reasonable people don't care to witness such things) bodily mutilation, suicide and self amputation in some cases (not taking it as far as tatoos or weird hairstyles) is defacing/destroying the body societal.

You could use this arguement as a reason against abortion, but that isn't what I was implying.

Gauche

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
Ah. So if my views differ substantially from yours, it's because I'm driven to be different. (NOW you're just being argumentative - and illustrating the Church's lack of tolerance quite nicely, thank you.)

I think you believe that I am in the habit of implying or blurring the directive of my assertions--and I am not. I am generally quite literal and avoid vaguery and sarcasm as a matter of course. As such, when I say that I can see no reason other than a drive to be different it isn't "There is no other reason"... it's literally "I do not see another". A police officer isn't "aiding and abetting" a murderer because he didn't see the fingerprint on the mantle. I wasn't talking about "one's personal views", I was talking about calling an encompassing spiritual presence "god" and reasons why and why not to do that. I am not claiming that there is no other reason than a drive to be different in the issue of not calling an encompassing spiritual presence "god", only that I can see no solid other reason. You will find, that was my position all along, as well.

If I am guilty, in your eyes, of "lacking tolerance" because I wasn't able to come up with a good reason for something, and admitted it... well, damn, whose the one really lacking tolerance, here?

One reason could be the one I gave: I don't assign a personality. I believe in a creative spirit behind intelligent life in the universe, which seems diminished by assigning it a personality, whether it's called God or Uncle Hal, with or without a beard and a nasty temper.Isn't it frustrating not to see anything in your own experience that explains the beliefs, fears and prejudices of others? Yet they insist that their experience has given them life-lessons so different from your own? Go figure.

See, I thought of that one... but ultimately I ruled it out. The notion of "god" doesn't have to have a personality, the term doesn't really necessitate it. So, as such, I could only set that one aside as a reason why not to use the term. I met someone, recently, who said "I believe that some people are better than others, naturally... but I wouldn't exactly call that talent". I replied with, "If not talent, then what?". She said, "How about skill?". I left it with, "But by definition, skill is learned and talent is natural... so why use other words?". She closed with "Because I don't like how people use the word--I want to seperate myself from people's idea of talent".

Her reason was valid. I couldn't argue with it. There's nothing wrong or unwise or fradulent about not wanting to associate one's self or viewpoint with a particular word... but ultimately, we ought admit its because of a desire to be different than what that word is accepted as. Were it not the case that the word in question were used in other ways (more popular and less pleasing ones), we would just as well use that word as it does contain in it the meaning we require.

I'm not sure what you meant about the "frustrating" and "prejudices of others" comments. I believe they are rhetorical questions, though they may not be. Please elucidate, as I fear they're just sarcasm.

For starters, visit your nearest Southern Baptist or Methodist Church and ask for a show of hands. Then, if you really want to see a display of faith in action, I recommend "Under the Banner of Heaven," by Jon Krakauer. But if all you really want is to be in a snit, that works too...BTW, the Pope and I are in constant touch by way of the newspaper. He sends me secret, coded messages about the Church's position on birth control, and he's not sending any positive messages about condom use even in places where AIDS is rampant.

Edited to add: You are no more likely to hear people claiming that their reliance on the church may not be purely positive in its effect on their lives, than you will hear people say, "I drink too much," or "Im a lousy driver" or "I'm a follower."

Living in Mississippi affords me a great deal of opportunity to interact with Protestants, soft and extreme ones. But I have never met one that has claimed that they could not commune with God or Jesus without the Church (rather, Protestants made a name for themselves way back in the day by hacking those very notions into a door at a Catholic Church). As a matter of fact, Protestants (Baptists, Southern Baptists, Methodists included) are taught the idea of "a personal relationship with Jesus". The idea that they are in direct control of their ability to meet with spiritual satisfaction. That I am not likely to hear someone say "I need the Church to be spiritual" any moreso than I am likely to hear someone say "I drink too much" does not actually rationally support your position. Notably, I have heard people say they drink too much (if we can accept anecdotal evidence as evidence of a sort), I myself claim to be a bad driver quite frequently... but still no word on Church necessity.

 

[shereads]

deleted